Within 30 days of the close of discovery, all dispositive motions shall be filed. The
parties agree that all discovery be held pursuant to a protective order of confidentiality to
protect the privacy of all parties. The parties agree that this Court shall issue a protective
order that prevents public disclosure of the information contained in discovery, including
requiring all pleadings and documents filed with the court referencing discovery to be
filed under seal.
Defendant has already filed and lost a dispositive motion. Defendant has indicated its desire to do the same yet again. If Defendant does so, Plaintiff may file a cross-motion for partial relief.
Pursuant to FRCP Rule 26 and this Court\u2019s Ruling the Plaintiff may hire expert witnesses
to provide testimony on topics including computer/internet technology and damages.
Plaintiff requests this Court to set a date by which the parties shall disclose any experts to
each and that no expert witnesses may be used if not identified within this period. The
remaining requirements of Rule 26(a)(2) remain in effect.
At this point, plaintiff is currently aware of over 30 potential witnesses other than
plaintiff that he believes he will call to demonstrate defendant\u2019s tortious actions and
plaintiff\u2019s damages. Plaintiff will take discovery of defendant to obtain the contact
information of the other individuals named in defendant\u2019s publicly-available blog, some
of whom have not yet been identified. Given the number of potential witnesses, Plaintiff estimates that the first tier of discovery could be substantially completed by January 31, 2007. The results of discovery may alter this tentative estimate, and after this discovery is completed, Plaintiff will determine whether additional discovery will be necessary in a second tier of discovery. Accordingly, no trial or scheduling conference date can be set at this time.
Defendant in her first responsive pleading, filed April 7, 2006, contends that \u201cJessica
Cutler gave her URL only to three of her friends, one of whom received her permission to
provide the Blog's URL to a fourth person. . . . [O]n May 18, 2004 somebody else gave
the blog URL site to the cyber-gossip Internet site, wonkette.com [Ana Marie Cox]. . . .
her blog became public on May 18, 2004,\u201d Answer \u00b6 10. Given Defendant\u2019s attempt to
shift responsibility for publicizing her publicly available blog, set forth without password
protection on the Worldwide Web, Plaintiff will seek to add as defendants both the
\u201csomebody else\u201d that defendant asserts alerted Cox about Cutler\u2019s publicly available
blog, and Cox. This way the Court will be in the position of determining who within the
universe defined by Defendant publicized the blog that Defendant concedes was
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?